Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 621	control, N = 311	treatment, N = 311	p-value2
age	62	50.77 ± 12.57 (25 - 74)	50.28 ± 13.07 (25 - 74)	51.27 ± 12.25 (31 - 72)	0.761
gender	62				0.783
f		43 (69%)	21 (68%)	22 (71%)
m		19 (31%)	10 (32%)	9 (29%)
occupation	62				0.951
day_training		1 (1.6%)	1 (3.2%)	0 (0%)
full_time		6 (9.7%)	4 (13%)	2 (6.5%)
homemaker		6 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)
other		2 (3.2%)	0 (0%)	2 (6.5%)
part_time		10 (16%)	5 (16%)	5 (16%)
retired		15 (24%)	7 (23%)	8 (26%)
self_employ		2 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)
student		1 (1.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.2%)
t_and_e		2 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)
unemploy		17 (27%)	9 (29%)	8 (26%)
marital	62				>0.999
cohabitation		1 (1.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.2%)
divore		5 (8.1%)	3 (9.7%)	2 (6.5%)
married		14 (23%)	7 (23%)	7 (23%)
none		36 (58%)	18 (58%)	18 (58%)
seperation		3 (4.8%)	2 (6.5%)	1 (3.2%)
widow		3 (4.8%)	1 (3.2%)	2 (6.5%)
edu	62				0.992
bachelor		19 (31%)	9 (29%)	10 (32%)
diploma		10 (16%)	6 (19%)	4 (13%)
hd_ad		3 (4.8%)	2 (6.5%)	1 (3.2%)
postgraduate		6 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)
primary		5 (8.1%)	2 (6.5%)	3 (9.7%)
secondary_1_3		4 (6.5%)	2 (6.5%)	2 (6.5%)
secondary_4_5		14 (23%)	7 (23%)	7 (23%)
secondary_6_7		1 (1.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.2%)
fam_income	62				0.899
10001_12000		3 (4.8%)	1 (3.2%)	2 (6.5%)
12001_14000		4 (6.5%)	2 (6.5%)	2 (6.5%)
14001_16000		5 (8.1%)	2 (6.5%)	3 (9.7%)
16001_18000		2 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)
18001_20000		3 (4.8%)	3 (9.7%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		9 (15%)	6 (19%)	3 (9.7%)
2001_4000		6 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)
4001_6000		9 (15%)	4 (13%)	5 (16%)
6001_8000		6 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)	3 (9.7%)
8001_10000		6 (9.7%)	2 (6.5%)	4 (13%)
below_2000		9 (15%)	4 (13%)	5 (16%)
medication	62	52 (84%)	27 (87%)	25 (81%)	0.490
onset_duration	62	15.34 ± 11.97 (0 - 56)	17.35 ± 13.20 (1 - 56)	13.32 ± 10.43 (0 - 35)	0.187
onset_age	62	35.44 ± 13.56 (15 - 64)	32.93 ± 11.96 (16 - 55)	37.94 ± 14.76 (15 - 64)	0.147
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 621	control, N = 311	treatment, N = 311	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	62	3.26 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.26 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.26 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)	>0.999
recovery_stage_b	62	17.95 ± 2.59 (9 - 23)	17.84 ± 2.79 (9 - 23)	18.06 ± 2.41 (14 - 23)	0.734
ras_confidence	62	30.27 ± 4.59 (19 - 40)	29.81 ± 4.21 (19 - 40)	30.74 ± 4.96 (20 - 39)	0.427
ras_willingness	62	12.05 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)	11.90 ± 1.83 (9 - 15)	12.19 ± 2.15 (7 - 15)	0.569
ras_goal	62	17.40 ± 2.79 (12 - 24)	17.48 ± 2.64 (12 - 23)	17.32 ± 2.97 (12 - 24)	0.822
ras_reliance	62	13.23 ± 2.85 (8 - 20)	13.03 ± 2.64 (8 - 18)	13.42 ± 3.07 (8 - 20)	0.597
ras_domination	62	10.06 ± 2.22 (3 - 15)	10.61 ± 1.89 (7 - 15)	9.52 ± 2.42 (3 - 14)	0.051
symptom	62	30.06 ± 9.61 (14 - 56)	30.00 ± 9.11 (14 - 48)	30.13 ± 10.22 (15 - 56)	0.958
slof_work	62	22.31 ± 4.81 (10 - 30)	22.45 ± 4.38 (15 - 30)	22.16 ± 5.27 (10 - 30)	0.814
slof_relationship	62	25.60 ± 5.91 (11 - 35)	25.42 ± 5.99 (13 - 35)	25.77 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)	0.815
satisfaction	62	20.84 ± 6.33 (5 - 30)	19.52 ± 5.91 (5 - 29)	22.16 ± 6.55 (5 - 30)	0.100
mhc_emotional	62	11.31 ± 3.65 (4 - 18)	11.10 ± 3.07 (6 - 17)	11.52 ± 4.19 (4 - 18)	0.654
mhc_social	62	14.53 ± 5.01 (6 - 26)	14.84 ± 5.07 (7 - 26)	14.23 ± 5.02 (6 - 23)	0.634
mhc_psychological	62	21.95 ± 5.82 (6 - 36)	21.61 ± 5.55 (10 - 33)	22.29 ± 6.15 (6 - 36)	0.650
resilisnce	62	16.55 ± 4.57 (6 - 25)	16.29 ± 4.63 (6 - 24)	16.81 ± 4.58 (7 - 25)	0.660
social_provision	62	13.65 ± 2.96 (5 - 20)	13.35 ± 2.64 (8 - 20)	13.94 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)	0.445
els_value_living	62	17.19 ± 2.91 (5 - 23)	16.71 ± 2.47 (12 - 22)	17.68 ± 3.26 (5 - 23)	0.192
els_life_fulfill	62	12.77 ± 3.21 (4 - 18)	11.77 ± 3.06 (5 - 17)	13.77 ± 3.07 (4 - 18)	0.013
els	62	29.97 ± 5.41 (9 - 40)	28.48 ± 4.48 (20 - 36)	31.45 ± 5.92 (9 - 40)	0.030
social_connect	62	27.00 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)	27.26 ± 7.95 (8 - 45)	26.74 ± 10.48 (8 - 48)	0.828
shs_agency	62	14.32 ± 4.58 (3 - 21)	13.61 ± 4.24 (3 - 20)	15.03 ± 4.85 (3 - 21)	0.225
shs_pathway	62	16.55 ± 3.70 (4 - 22)	16.03 ± 3.41 (8 - 22)	17.06 ± 3.95 (4 - 22)	0.275
shs	62	30.87 ± 7.71 (7 - 42)	29.65 ± 7.22 (14 - 41)	32.10 ± 8.11 (7 - 42)	0.214
esteem	62	12.52 ± 1.21 (10 - 15)	12.58 ± 1.12 (10 - 14)	12.45 ± 1.31 (10 - 15)	0.678
mlq_search	62	14.87 ± 3.42 (3 - 21)	14.97 ± 3.25 (6 - 21)	14.77 ± 3.63 (3 - 20)	0.826
mlq_presence	62	13.52 ± 4.05 (3 - 21)	13.65 ± 3.34 (6 - 20)	13.39 ± 4.71 (3 - 21)	0.804
mlq	62	28.39 ± 6.63 (6 - 41)	28.61 ± 5.87 (12 - 40)	28.16 ± 7.40 (6 - 41)	0.791
empower	62	19.63 ± 4.20 (6 - 28)	19.32 ± 3.87 (11 - 24)	19.94 ± 4.55 (6 - 28)	0.570
ismi_resistance	62	14.61 ± 2.71 (5 - 20)	14.48 ± 2.26 (11 - 19)	14.74 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)	0.711
ismi_discrimation	62	11.40 ± 3.36 (5 - 19)	12.35 ± 2.92 (5 - 18)	10.45 ± 3.55 (5 - 19)	0.025
sss_affective	62	10.02 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)	10.65 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)	9.39 ± 4.40 (3 - 18)	0.215
sss_behavior	62	9.76 ± 4.06 (3 - 18)	10.58 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	8.94 ± 4.05 (3 - 18)	0.111
sss_cognitive	62	8.35 ± 4.10 (3 - 18)	8.68 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)	8.03 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)	0.540
sss	62	28.13 ± 11.25 (9 - 54)	29.90 ± 10.38 (9 - 54)	26.35 ± 11.95 (9 - 54)	0.217
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.26	0.218	2.83, 3.68
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.308	-0.603, 0.603	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.254	0.339	-0.410, 0.918	0.457
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.047	0.463	-0.861, 0.955	0.920
	Pseudo R square	0.012
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.8	0.486	16.9, 18.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.226	0.687	-1.12, 1.57	0.743
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.100	0.686	-1.44, 1.24	0.884
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.540	0.935	-1.29, 2.37	0.567
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.8	0.886	28.1, 31.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.935	1.254	-1.52, 3.39	0.458
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.496	0.979	-1.42, 2.42	0.615
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.065	1.331	-2.54, 2.67	0.961
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.9	0.364	11.2, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.290	0.515	-0.718, 1.30	0.574
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.839	0.360	-1.55, -0.133	0.026
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.665	0.489	-0.294, 1.62	0.182
	Pseudo R square	0.034
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.548	16.4, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.161	0.775	-1.68, 1.36	0.836
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.849	0.618	-2.06, 0.361	0.176
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.50	0.840	-0.144, 3.15	0.081
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.505	12.0, 14.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.387	0.714	-1.01, 1.79	0.589
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.242	0.465	-0.669, 1.15	0.605
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.744	0.631	-0.493, 1.98	0.246
	Pseudo R square	0.029
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.6	0.395	9.84, 11.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.10	0.559	-2.19, -0.002	0.053
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.537	0.539	-1.59, 0.519	0.324
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.34	0.734	-0.102, 2.78	0.076
	Pseudo R square	0.041
symptom	(Intercept)	30.0	1.745	26.6, 33.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.129	2.468	-4.71, 4.97	0.958
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.684	1.265	-3.16, 1.80	0.592
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.121	1.716	-3.48, 3.24	0.944
	Pseudo R square	0.001
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.873	20.7, 24.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.290	1.234	-2.71, 2.13	0.815
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.123	0.706	-1.51, 1.26	0.863
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.17	0.957	-3.05, 0.703	0.229
	Pseudo R square	0.014
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.4	1.062	23.3, 27.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.355	1.502	-2.59, 3.30	0.814
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.20	1.007	-3.18, 0.772	0.241
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.592	1.368	-2.09, 3.27	0.668
	Pseudo R square	0.008
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.5	1.189	17.2, 21.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.65	1.682	-0.651, 5.94	0.120
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.871	1.367	-1.81, 3.55	0.528
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.72	1.859	-5.37, 1.92	0.360
	Pseudo R square	0.027
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.1	0.657	9.81, 12.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.419	0.929	-1.40, 2.24	0.653
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.692	0.635	-0.553, 1.94	0.283
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.26	0.862	-2.95, 0.433	0.154
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.8	0.946	13.0, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.613	1.338	-3.24, 2.01	0.648
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.26	1.066	-0.834, 3.35	0.246
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.40	1.449	-4.24, 1.44	0.340
	Pseudo R square	0.016
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	1.111	19.4, 23.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.677	1.571	-2.40, 3.76	0.668
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.979	1.182	-1.34, 3.29	0.413
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.12	1.605	-5.27, 1.03	0.195
	Pseudo R square	0.007
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.791	14.7, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.516	1.119	-1.68, 2.71	0.646
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.540	0.757	-0.943, 2.02	0.480
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.160	1.027	-1.85, 2.17	0.877
	Pseudo R square	0.009
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.4	0.523	12.3, 14.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.581	0.740	-0.870, 2.03	0.435
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.417	0.574	-1.54, 0.708	0.472
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.273	0.780	-1.26, 1.80	0.728
	Pseudo R square	0.015
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.7	0.522	15.7, 17.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.968	0.738	-0.479, 2.41	0.194
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.627	0.547	-0.446, 1.70	0.259
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.487	0.743	-1.94, 0.970	0.516
	Pseudo R square	0.025
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.8	0.536	10.7, 12.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.00	0.758	0.515, 3.49	0.010
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.15	0.572	0.025, 2.27	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.929	0.778	-2.45, 0.595	0.240
	Pseudo R square	0.090
els	(Intercept)	28.5	0.939	26.6, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.97	1.328	0.366, 5.57	0.029
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.70	0.925	-0.116, 3.51	0.074
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.34	1.257	-3.80, 1.12	0.294
	Pseudo R square	0.067
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.3	1.634	24.1, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.516	2.311	-5.05, 4.01	0.824
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.598	1.333	-2.02, 3.21	0.657
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.501	1.809	-4.05, 3.04	0.783
	Pseudo R square	0.002
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.6	0.826	12.0, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.42	1.169	-0.871, 3.71	0.229
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.380	0.856	-1.30, 2.06	0.659
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.239	1.163	-2.04, 2.52	0.838
	Pseudo R square	0.030
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.0	0.656	14.7, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.03	0.928	-0.787, 2.85	0.270
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.582	0.599	-0.592, 1.76	0.338
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.735	0.813	-2.33, 0.858	0.372
	Pseudo R square	0.014
shs	(Intercept)	29.6	1.377	26.9, 32.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.45	1.948	-1.37, 6.27	0.212
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.911	1.284	-1.61, 3.43	0.483
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.420	1.743	-3.84, 3.00	0.811
	Pseudo R square	0.025
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.217	12.2, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.129	0.307	-0.731, 0.473	0.676
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.600	0.373	-0.132, 1.33	0.115
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.323	0.513	-1.33, 0.682	0.532
	Pseudo R square	0.040
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.0	0.619	13.8, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.194	0.876	-1.91, 1.52	0.826
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.045	0.799	-1.61, 1.52	0.956
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.044	1.088	-2.18, 2.09	0.968
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.6	0.720	12.2, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.258	1.018	-2.25, 1.74	0.801
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.017	0.885	-1.72, 1.75	0.985
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.113	1.204	-2.25, 2.47	0.926
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq	(Intercept)	28.6	1.213	26.2, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.452	1.716	-3.81, 2.91	0.793
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.036	1.512	-3.00, 2.93	0.981
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.064	2.058	-3.97, 4.10	0.975
	Pseudo R square	0.001
empower	(Intercept)	19.3	0.726	17.9, 20.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.613	1.027	-1.40, 2.63	0.553
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.132	0.710	-1.26, 1.52	0.853
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.851	0.965	-2.74, 1.04	0.384
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.5	0.461	13.6, 15.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.258	0.652	-1.02, 1.54	0.693
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.549	0.658	-0.742, 1.84	0.409
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.630	0.898	-2.39, 1.13	0.487
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.4	0.591	11.2, 13.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.90	0.836	-3.54, -0.264	0.026
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.960	0.595	-2.13, 0.206	0.115
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.50	0.808	-0.085, 3.08	0.072
	Pseudo R square	0.054
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.6	0.685	9.30, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.26	0.969	-3.16, 0.641	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.020	0.599	-1.15, 1.20	0.973
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.852	0.813	-2.45, 0.742	0.302
	Pseudo R square	0.046
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.6	0.694	9.22, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.65	0.982	-3.57, 0.279	0.098
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.300	0.648	-1.57, 0.970	0.646
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.377	0.880	-2.10, 1.35	0.671
	Pseudo R square	0.056
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.68	0.725	7.26, 10.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.645	1.025	-2.65, 1.36	0.531
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.855	0.609	-0.339, 2.05	0.169
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.65	0.826	-3.27, -0.035	0.053
	Pseudo R square	0.032
sss	(Intercept)	29.9	1.948	26.1, 33.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.55	2.755	-8.95, 1.85	0.202
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.645	1.538	-2.37, 3.66	0.678
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.94	2.086	-7.03, 1.14	0.167
	Pseudo R square	0.049
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.26 (95% CI [2.83, 3.68], t(89) = 14.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.18e-15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.60], t(89) = 2.01e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -9.11e-17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.92], t(89) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.76])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.95], t(89) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [16.89, 18.79], t(89) = 36.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.57], t(89) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.24], t(89) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.37], t(89) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.88])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [28.07, 31.54], t(89) = 33.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.39], t(89) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.42], t(89) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.54, 2.67], t(89) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.90 (95% CI [11.19, 12.62], t(89) = 32.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.30], t(89) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.13], t(89) = -2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.62], t(89) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.80])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.41, 18.56], t(89) = 31.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.36], t(89) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.36], t(89) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.15], t(89) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.01])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.04, 14.02], t(89) = 25.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.79], t(89) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(89) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.98], t(89) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.84, 11.39], t(89) = 26.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.19, -1.71e-03], t(89) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.99, -7.72e-04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.52], t(89) = -1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.78], t(89) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.25])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.00 (95% CI [26.58, 33.42], t(89) = 17.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-4.71, 4.97], t(89) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.16, 1.80], t(89) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-3.48, 3.24], t(89) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.45 (95% CI [20.74, 24.16], t(89) = 25.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.71, 2.13], t(89) = -0.24, p = 0.814; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.26], t(89) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.70], t(89) = -1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.42 (95% CI [23.34, 27.50], t(89) = 23.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.59, 3.30], t(89) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.77], t(89) = -1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.27], t(89) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.52 (95% CI [17.19, 21.85], t(89) = 16.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.65, 95% CI [-0.65, 5.94], t(89) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.89])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.81, 3.55], t(89) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-5.37, 1.92], t(89) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.29])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.10 (95% CI [9.81, 12.38], t(89) = 16.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.24], t(89) = 0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.94], t(89) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.95, 0.43], t(89) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [12.98, 16.69], t(89) = 15.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.24, 2.01], t(89) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.83, 3.35], t(89) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.63])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.24, 1.44], t(89) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.27])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.61 (95% CI [19.44, 23.79], t(89) = 19.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-2.40, 3.76], t(89) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-1.34, 3.29], t(89) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.12, 95% CI [-5.27, 1.03], t(89) = -1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.17])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [14.74, 17.84], t(89) = 20.58, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.71], t(89) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.02], t(89) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.17], t(89) = 0.16, p = 0.877; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.35 (95% CI [12.33, 14.38], t(89) = 25.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.03], t(89) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.71], t(89) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.80], t(89) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.62])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.71 (95% CI [15.69, 17.73], t(89) = 32.02, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.41], t(89) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.70], t(89) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.97], t(89) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.33])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [10.72, 12.82], t(89) = 21.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [0.51, 3.49], t(89) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.17, 1.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [0.03, 2.27], t(89) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [8.08e-03, 0.73])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.59], t(89) = -1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.48 (95% CI [26.64, 30.32], t(89) = 30.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.97, 95% CI [0.37, 5.57], t(89) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.07, 1.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.51], t(89) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.80, 1.12], t(89) = -1.07, p = 0.287; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.21])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.26 (95% CI [24.06, 30.46], t(89) = 16.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-5.05, 4.01], t(89) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.02, 3.21], t(89) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-4.05, 3.04], t(89) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.33])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.61 (95% CI [11.99, 15.23], t(89) = 16.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.71], t(89) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.80])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.06], t(89) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.52], t(89) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.03 (95% CI [14.75, 17.32], t(89) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.85], t(89) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.76], t(89) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.86], t(89) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.24])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.65 (95% CI [26.95, 32.34], t(89) = 21.53, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.45, 95% CI [-1.37, 6.27], t(89) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.43], t(89) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-3.84, 3.00], t(89) = -0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.39])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.15, 13.01], t(89) = 57.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.47], t(89) = -0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.33], t(89) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.68], t(89) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.56])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.75, 16.18], t(89) = 24.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.52], t(89) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.52], t(89) = -0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.09], t(89) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.61e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.65 (95% CI [12.23, 15.06], t(89) = 18.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.74], t(89) = -0.25, p = 0.800; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.75], t(89) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 4.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.47], t(89) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.62])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.61 (95% CI [26.23, 30.99], t(89) = 23.58, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.81, 2.91], t(89) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.93], t(89) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -5.35e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.97, 4.10], t(89) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 9.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [17.90, 20.75], t(89) = 26.61, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.63], t(89) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.52], t(89) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.04], t(89) = -0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.26])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.58, 15.39], t(89) = 31.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.54], t(89) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.84], t(89) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.13], t(89) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.20, 13.51], t(89) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.90, 95% CI [-3.54, -0.26], t(89) = -2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.21], t(89) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.08], t(89) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.93])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.30, 11.99], t(89) = 15.54, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.64], t(89) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.20], t(89) = 0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = 5.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.74], t(89) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.58 (95% CI [9.22, 11.94], t(89) = 15.24, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.28], t(89) = -1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.07])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.97], t(89) = -0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.35], t(89) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.68 (95% CI [7.26, 10.10], t(89) = 11.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.36], t(89) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.05], t(89) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.03], t(89) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, -8.70e-03])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.09, 33.72], t(89) = 15.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.55, 95% CI [-8.95, 1.85], t(89) = -1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.17])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.66], t(89) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-7.03, 1.14], t(89) = -1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	306.892	314.554	-150.446	300.892
recovery_stage_a	random	6	311.361	326.684	-149.680	299.361	1.532	3	0.675
recovery_stage_b	null	3	454.483	462.144	-224.241	448.483
recovery_stage_b	random	6	459.539	474.862	-223.769	447.539	0.944	3	0.815
ras_confidence	null	3	555.881	563.542	-274.940	549.881
ras_confidence	random	6	560.526	575.850	-274.263	548.526	1.355	3	0.716
ras_willingness	null	3	384.834	392.495	-189.417	378.834
ras_willingness	random	6	384.832	400.155	-186.416	372.832	6.002	3	0.112
ras_goal	null	3	467.755	475.417	-230.878	461.755
ras_goal	random	6	470.360	485.683	-229.180	458.360	3.395	3	0.335
ras_reliance	null	3	442.928	450.590	-218.464	436.928
ras_reliance	random	6	442.514	457.837	-215.257	430.514	6.414	3	0.093
ras_domination	null	3	418.051	425.713	-206.025	412.051
ras_domination	random	6	418.636	433.959	-203.318	406.636	5.415	3	0.144
symptom	null	3	658.083	665.745	-326.042	652.083
symptom	random	6	663.270	678.594	-325.635	651.270	0.813	3	0.846
slof_work	null	3	536.782	544.444	-265.391	530.782
slof_work	random	6	538.459	553.782	-263.230	526.459	4.323	3	0.229
slof_relationship	null	3	581.655	589.317	-287.828	575.655
slof_relationship	random	6	585.707	601.030	-286.853	573.707	1.948	3	0.583
satisfaction	null	3	615.408	623.069	-304.704	609.408
satisfaction	random	6	618.655	633.978	-303.327	606.655	2.753	3	0.431
mhc_emotional	null	3	491.754	499.416	-242.877	485.754
mhc_emotional	random	6	495.582	510.905	-241.791	483.582	2.172	3	0.537
mhc_social	null	3	570.166	577.828	-282.083	564.166
mhc_social	random	6	574.080	589.404	-281.040	562.080	2.086	3	0.555
mhc_psychological	null	3	597.021	604.683	-295.511	591.021
mhc_psychological	random	6	601.179	616.502	-294.589	589.179	1.842	3	0.606
resilisnce	null	3	526.176	533.837	-260.088	520.176
resilisnce	random	6	530.289	545.612	-259.144	518.289	1.887	3	0.596
social_provision	null	3	455.501	463.163	-224.751	449.501
social_provision	random	6	460.007	475.331	-224.004	448.007	1.494	3	0.684
els_value_living	null	3	453.663	461.324	-223.831	447.663
els_value_living	random	6	456.760	472.083	-222.380	444.760	2.903	3	0.407
els_life_fulfill	null	3	466.833	474.494	-230.416	460.833
els_life_fulfill	random	6	462.873	478.196	-225.437	450.873	9.959	3	0.019
els	null	3	566.409	574.070	-280.204	560.409
els	random	6	564.615	579.938	-276.307	552.615	7.794	3	0.050
social_connect	null	3	652.524	660.186	-323.262	646.524
social_connect	random	6	658.219	673.542	-323.109	646.219	0.305	3	0.959
shs_agency	null	3	540.085	547.747	-267.043	534.085
shs_agency	random	6	543.374	558.698	-265.687	531.374	2.711	3	0.438
shs_pathway	null	3	487.832	495.494	-240.916	481.832
shs_pathway	random	6	491.892	507.215	-239.946	479.892	1.941	3	0.585
shs	null	3	630.313	637.974	-312.156	624.313
shs	random	6	634.007	649.330	-311.003	622.007	2.306	3	0.511
esteem	null	3	311.657	319.319	-152.829	305.657
esteem	random	6	313.656	328.979	-150.828	301.656	4.001	3	0.261
mlq_search	null	3	495.258	502.920	-244.629	489.258
mlq_search	random	6	501.170	516.493	-244.585	489.170	0.088	3	0.993
mlq_presence	null	3	521.232	528.894	-257.616	515.232
mlq_presence	random	6	527.150	542.473	-257.575	515.150	0.082	3	0.994
mlq	null	3	621.119	628.781	-307.560	615.119
mlq	random	6	627.044	642.367	-307.522	615.044	0.076	3	0.995
empower	null	3	510.777	518.438	-252.388	504.777
empower	random	6	515.343	530.666	-251.671	503.343	1.434	3	0.698
ismi_resistance	null	3	445.001	452.662	-219.500	439.001
ismi_resistance	random	6	450.253	465.576	-219.127	438.253	0.747	3	0.862
ismi_discrimation	null	3	479.096	486.758	-236.548	473.096
ismi_discrimation	random	6	478.055	493.378	-233.027	466.055	7.041	3	0.071
sss_affective	null	3	496.363	504.025	-245.182	490.363
sss_affective	random	6	497.401	512.724	-242.701	485.401	4.962	3	0.175
sss_behavior	null	3	502.991	510.652	-248.495	496.991
sss_behavior	random	6	503.926	519.250	-245.963	491.926	5.064	3	0.167
sss_cognitive	null	3	504.780	512.441	-249.390	498.780
sss_cognitive	random	6	505.580	520.904	-246.790	493.580	5.199	3	0.158
sss	null	3	689.093	696.754	-341.546	683.093
sss	random	6	689.510	704.833	-338.755	677.510	5.583	3	0.134

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	31	3.26 ± 1.21		31	3.26 ± 1.21		1.000	0.000
recovery_stage_a	2nd	15	3.51 ± 1.20	-0.247	18	3.56 ± 1.21	-0.293	0.912	-0.045
recovery_stage_b	1st	31	17.84 ± 2.70		31	18.06 ± 2.70		0.743	-0.111
recovery_stage_b	2nd	15	17.74 ± 2.60	0.049	18	18.50 ± 2.62	-0.216	0.403	-0.377
ras_confidence	1st	31	29.81 ± 4.94		31	30.74 ± 4.94		0.458	-0.334
ras_confidence	2nd	15	30.30 ± 4.33	-0.177	18	31.30 ± 4.45	-0.200	0.516	-0.357
ras_willingness	1st	31	11.90 ± 2.03		31	12.19 ± 2.03		0.575	-0.284
ras_willingness	2nd	15	11.06 ± 1.72	0.822	18	12.02 ± 1.78	0.170	0.121	-0.936
ras_goal	1st	31	17.48 ± 3.05		31	17.32 ± 3.05		0.836	0.091
ras_goal	2nd	15	16.63 ± 2.70	0.480	18	17.98 ± 2.77	-0.369	0.164	-0.758
ras_reliance	1st	31	13.03 ± 2.81		31	13.42 ± 2.81		0.589	-0.295
ras_reliance	2nd	15	13.27 ± 2.33	-0.185	18	14.41 ± 2.43	-0.752	0.177	-0.863
ras_domination	1st	31	10.61 ± 2.20		31	9.52 ± 2.20		0.053	0.692
ras_domination	2nd	15	10.08 ± 2.09	0.339	18	10.32 ± 2.11	-0.505	0.743	-0.152
symptom	1st	31	30.00 ± 9.72		31	30.13 ± 9.72		0.958	-0.037
symptom	2nd	15	29.32 ± 7.61	0.194	18	29.32 ± 8.04	0.228	0.998	-0.002
slof_work	1st	31	22.45 ± 4.86		31	22.16 ± 4.86		0.815	0.147
slof_work	2nd	15	22.33 ± 3.90	0.062	18	20.87 ± 4.09	0.656	0.297	0.741
slof_relationship	1st	31	25.42 ± 5.91		31	25.77 ± 5.91		0.814	-0.125
slof_relationship	2nd	15	24.22 ± 4.95	0.423	18	25.16 ± 5.14	0.215	0.592	-0.333
satisfaction	1st	31	19.52 ± 6.62		31	22.16 ± 6.62		0.120	-0.674
satisfaction	2nd	15	20.39 ± 5.90	-0.222	18	21.31 ± 6.04	0.217	0.659	-0.235
mhc_emotional	1st	31	11.10 ± 3.66		31	11.52 ± 3.66		0.653	-0.233
mhc_emotional	2nd	15	11.79 ± 3.08	-0.385	18	10.95 ± 3.19	0.315	0.446	0.466
mhc_social	1st	31	14.84 ± 5.27		31	14.23 ± 5.27		0.648	0.201
mhc_social	2nd	15	16.09 ± 4.66	-0.411	18	14.08 ± 4.78	0.048	0.225	0.659
mhc_psychological	1st	31	21.61 ± 6.19		31	22.29 ± 6.19		0.668	-0.201
mhc_psychological	2nd	15	22.59 ± 5.36	-0.291	18	21.15 ± 5.53	0.339	0.450	0.429
resilisnce	1st	31	16.29 ± 4.41		31	16.81 ± 4.41		0.646	-0.241
resilisnce	2nd	15	16.83 ± 3.69	-0.252	18	17.51 ± 3.84	-0.327	0.609	-0.316
social_provision	1st	31	13.35 ± 2.91		31	13.94 ± 2.91		0.435	-0.354
social_provision	2nd	15	12.94 ± 2.55	0.254	18	13.79 ± 2.62	0.087	0.347	-0.520
els_value_living	1st	31	16.71 ± 2.91		31	17.68 ± 2.91		0.194	-0.621
els_value_living	2nd	15	17.34 ± 2.51	-0.402	18	17.82 ± 2.59	-0.089	0.590	-0.309
els_life_fulfill	1st	31	11.77 ± 2.98		31	13.77 ± 2.98		0.010	-1.226
els_life_fulfill	2nd	15	12.92 ± 2.59	-0.703	18	13.99 ± 2.67	-0.133	0.246	-0.657
els	1st	31	28.48 ± 5.23		31	31.45 ± 5.23		0.029	-1.132
els	2nd	15	30.18 ± 4.42	-0.648	18	31.81 ± 4.59	-0.137	0.303	-0.621
social_connect	1st	31	27.26 ± 9.10		31	26.74 ± 9.10		0.824	0.138
social_connect	2nd	15	27.86 ± 7.31	-0.160	18	26.84 ± 7.68	-0.026	0.698	0.272
shs_agency	1st	31	13.61 ± 4.60		31	15.03 ± 4.60		0.229	-0.583
shs_agency	2nd	15	13.99 ± 3.96	-0.156	18	15.65 ± 4.08	-0.255	0.240	-0.681
shs_pathway	1st	31	16.03 ± 3.65		31	17.06 ± 3.65		0.270	-0.612
shs_pathway	2nd	15	16.61 ± 3.02	-0.345	18	16.91 ± 3.15	0.091	0.784	-0.176
shs	1st	31	29.65 ± 7.67		31	32.10 ± 7.67		0.212	-0.677
shs	2nd	15	30.56 ± 6.38	-0.251	18	32.59 ± 6.64	-0.136	0.374	-0.561
esteem	1st	31	12.58 ± 1.21		31	12.45 ± 1.21		0.676	0.110
esteem	2nd	15	13.18 ± 1.23	-0.510	18	12.73 ± 1.23	-0.236	0.295	0.384
mlq_search	1st	31	14.97 ± 3.45		31	14.77 ± 3.45		0.826	0.083
mlq_search	2nd	15	14.92 ± 3.20	0.019	18	14.69 ± 3.25	0.038	0.833	0.102
mlq_presence	1st	31	13.65 ± 4.01		31	13.39 ± 4.01		0.801	0.101
mlq_presence	2nd	15	13.66 ± 3.66	-0.007	18	13.52 ± 3.73	-0.051	0.910	0.057
mlq	1st	31	28.61 ± 6.76		31	28.16 ± 6.76		0.793	0.103
mlq	2nd	15	28.58 ± 6.19	0.008	18	28.19 ± 6.30	-0.006	0.859	0.088
empower	1st	31	19.32 ± 4.04		31	19.94 ± 4.04		0.553	-0.305
empower	2nd	15	19.45 ± 3.41	-0.066	18	19.22 ± 3.54	0.358	0.845	0.119
ismi_resistance	1st	31	14.48 ± 2.57		31	14.74 ± 2.57		0.693	-0.132
ismi_resistance	2nd	15	15.03 ± 2.48	-0.281	18	14.66 ± 2.49	0.042	0.669	0.190
ismi_discrimation	1st	31	12.35 ± 3.29		31	10.45 ± 3.29		0.026	1.128
ismi_discrimation	2nd	15	11.39 ± 2.80	0.569	18	10.99 ± 2.90	-0.319	0.686	0.240
sss_affective	1st	31	10.65 ± 3.81		31	9.39 ± 3.81		0.199	0.747
sss_affective	2nd	15	10.67 ± 3.12	-0.012	18	8.56 ± 3.26	0.494	0.061	1.253
sss_behavior	1st	31	10.58 ± 3.86		31	8.94 ± 3.86		0.098	0.900
sss_behavior	2nd	15	10.28 ± 3.22	0.164	18	8.26 ± 3.35	0.370	0.081	1.106
sss_cognitive	1st	31	8.68 ± 4.04		31	8.03 ± 4.04		0.531	0.378
sss_cognitive	2nd	15	9.53 ± 3.27	-0.501	18	7.23 ± 3.42	0.468	0.052	1.347
sss	1st	31	29.90 ± 10.84		31	26.35 ± 10.84		0.202	0.825
sss	2nd	15	30.55 ± 8.65	-0.150	18	24.06 ± 9.10	0.535	0.039	1.510

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(86.50) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.61)

2st

t(90.50) = 0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.88)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(81.12) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.59)

2st

t(90.40) = 0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.58)

ras_confidence

1st

t(71.48) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.43)

2st

t(90.95) = 0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.05)

ras_willingness

1st

t(68.83) = 0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.32)

2st

t(90.20) = 1.57, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.17)

ras_goal

1st

t(72.04) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.38)

2st

t(90.99) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.24)

ras_reliance

1st

t(67.46) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.81)

2st

t(89.15) = 1.36, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.78)

ras_domination

1st

t(79.38) = -1.96, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.21 to 0.02)

2st

t(90.49) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.70)

symptom

1st

t(64.35) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.80 to 5.06)

2st

t(83.35) = 0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-5.42 to 5.44)

slof_work

1st

t(65.54) = -0.24, p = 0.815, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.75 to 2.17)

2st

t(86.32) = -1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.23 to 1.31)

slof_relationship

1st

t(67.98) = 0.24, p = 0.814, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.35)

2st

t(89.62) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.45)

satisfaction

1st

t(72.65) = 1.57, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.71 to 6.00)

2st

t(91.00) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.22 to 5.06)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(68.34) = 0.45, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.27)

2st

t(89.89) = -0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.34)

mhc_social

1st

t(72.04) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.28 to 2.05)

2st

t(90.99) = -1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-5.29 to 1.26)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(70.46) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.46 to 3.81)

2st

t(90.80) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.22 to 2.33)

resilisnce

1st

t(68.13) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.75)

2st

t(89.74) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.29)

social_provision

1st

t(71.27) = 0.78, p = 0.435, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.06)

2st

t(90.93) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.65)

els_value_living

1st

t(70.11) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.44)

2st

t(90.71) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.25)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(70.57) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.49 to 3.51)

2st

t(90.82) = 1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.89)

els

1st

t(68.73) = 2.24, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.32 to 5.62)

2st

t(90.14) = 1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.50 to 4.75)

social_connect

1st

t(65.65) = -0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-5.13 to 4.10)

2st

t(86.54) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-6.22 to 4.18)

shs_agency

1st

t(69.83) = 1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.75)

2st

t(90.63) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.13 to 4.45)

shs_pathway

1st

t(67.29) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.89)

2st

t(88.97) = 0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.44)

shs

1st

t(67.67) = 1.26, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.44 to 6.34)

2st

t(89.35) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.55)

esteem

1st

t(90.81) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.48)

2st

t(90.97) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.40)

mlq_search

1st

t(76.87) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.55)

2st

t(90.70) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.48 to 2.00)

mlq_presence

1st

t(74.93) = -0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.77)

2st

t(90.88) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.71 to 2.42)

mlq

1st

t(75.47) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.87 to 2.97)

2st

t(90.83) = -0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.72 to 3.95)

empower

1st

t(68.58) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.66)

2st

t(90.05) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.65 to 2.17)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(81.70) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.56)

2st

t(90.38) = -0.43, p = 0.669, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.35)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(69.16) = -2.28, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.23)

2st

t(90.37) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.57)

sss_affective

1st

t(66.62) = -1.30, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.19 to 0.68)

2st

t(88.16) = -1.90, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-4.32 to 0.10)

sss_behavior

1st

t(67.69) = -1.68, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.31)

2st

t(89.37) = -1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(66.04) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.40)

2st

t(87.25) = -1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.62 to 0.02)

sss

1st

t(65.25) = -1.29, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-9.05 to 1.95)

2st

t(85.69) = -2.10, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-12.65 to -0.34)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 0.94, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(40.65) = 0.69, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(35.92) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.40)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(34.75) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(36.17) = 1.14, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.81)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.15) = 2.30, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.86)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(39.71) = 1.59, p = 0.239, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.82)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(32.83) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.56)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.33) = -2.00, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.38) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.28)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(36.45) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.42 to 1.72)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.54) = -0.96, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.62)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(36.17) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.47) = -1.04, p = 0.606, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.36 to 1.08)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.44) = 1.00, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.12)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(35.82) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.93)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(35.31) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.17)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(35.51) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(34.71) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.09)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.38) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.59)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(35.19) = 0.78, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.08) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.97)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.24) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.91 to 2.90)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(49.45) = 0.78, p = 0.875, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.99)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(38.43) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.42)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(37.50) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.80)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(37.75) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.82 to 2.88)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(34.64) = -1.10, p = 0.561, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.61)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(40.97) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(34.89) = 0.98, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.65)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(33.80) = -1.51, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.29)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.25) = -1.13, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.54)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.55) = -1.43, p = 0.326, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.34)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.21) = -1.63, p = 0.227, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.17 to 0.58)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(47.65) = 0.74, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(43.21) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.30)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(37.16) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.49)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(35.68) = -2.31, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-1.57 to -0.10)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(37.47) = -1.37, p = 0.361, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.41)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.93) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(42.00) = -0.99, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.56)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(33.27) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.27 to 1.90)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.90) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(35.21) = -1.19, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.85)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.83) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.66)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.41) = 1.08, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.99)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(37.48) = 1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.43)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(36.58) = 0.82, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.39)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(35.29) = 0.71, p = 0.966, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.08)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(37.04) = -0.72, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(36.39) = 1.14, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.74)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.64) = 1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.31)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.62) = 1.82, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.59)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.96) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.32)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(36.23) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.13)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.84) = 0.97, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.80)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(35.04) = 0.71, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.53)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.39) = 1.59, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(40.37) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.59)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(39.17) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.82)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(39.50) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(35.54) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.58)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(43.63) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.89)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(35.86) = -1.60, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.25)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.48) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.24)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(35.05) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(34.16) = 1.40, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.10)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.74) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.78)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance